Half Moon Bay Review

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OR SWEETHEART DEAL? City Council, posted by George, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on April 12, 2007 at 12:49 pm Share It:             SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OR SWEETHEART DEAL? Last week the City Council announced their unanimous decision on the Pacific Ridge housing project. Since 2004, the City, Coastal Commission and Ailanto, the developer, have had a "settlement agreement" (settling a number of developer lawsuits) that allows Ailanto to build 63 large homes above the high school, using Terrace Avenue as sole permanent access, IF a stoplight is built at Terrace and Highway 1. That plan was inadvertently torpedoed by an environmental impact report (EIR) the developer provided the City last fall, which despite its intended effect, instead showed that a stoplight at Terrace faced grave difficulties, including destruction of wetlands. In response, as a Council member announced at the November workshop, the City promptly began to look for ways to allow the developer to build the 63 houses, WITHOUT building a stoplight at Terrace and Highway 1. Toward that end, did the City attorney privately convince the Council to exercise paragraph 7(d) of the settlement agreement, an escape clause allowing the City to take a letter of credit from the developer for the stoplight, so that the developer can get started on the project without first building the stoplight? The motion passed by the Council last week had two parts: first, to take the letter of credit from the developer for the expense of the stoplight, and second, to stop working on the City's investigation of whether the Terrace stoplight should in fact be built. Isn't that a contradiction? Why would the City take a letter of credit for a project they are no longer considering? Why would the City not finish the almost completed EIR process (after so much time, expense and effort have been invested) and, using the facts it contains, make an informed decision whether a stoplight at Terrace should be permitted? To answer this question, the reader must imagine, from the Council's perspective, what awkward things would happen if the City were to complete the EIR process. First, the City would need to address the public comments on the EIR and Terrace stoplight, valuable criticism that measures over an inch thick. The way the Council is working it, the public's comments can go straight to the shredder without response. Second, by finalizing and accepting the EIR, the City would be stuck with the study's findings, especially the delineated wetlands. That would be doubly awkward, since the developer and City Council have insisted the reason they can't build Foothill Boulevard, the Coastal Commission's previously required permanent access for Pacific Ridge, is because of...you guessed it, supposed wetlands. Based on Ailanto's own EIR, the Council would have no choice but to turn down the developer's application for a Terrace stoplight permit. The beauty of not finalizing and accepting the Terrace EIR for the Council, is that if they decide to build a Terrace stoplight in the future, the Council can direct their Planning Director to determine that a negative declaration is sufficient for the project, avoiding the need for an EIR. Then, the EIR, never accepted by the City, effectively disappears from the public record, and its findings become completely irrelevant. Neat, huh? The next big question is whether the Coastal Commission will accept a settlement agreement whose heart, the Terrace stoplight, has been carved out. Chances are they will, because it preserves the Commission's lot retirement scheme from further legal scrutiny. The public, especially the hapless residents of Highland Park, are left out in the cold, with nothing but questions: Did the Council's personal relationships with the developers cloud their judgment? Should Council members recuse themselves from consideration of permit applications from longstanding friends or acquaintances? Did the Council instruct their staff to stop working on the EIR last week, or was the work stopped months ago, when the EIR didn't give them the findings they wanted? If staff has been working continuously since last fall on the EIR, can the public see and review what they did? Why did none of the Council ever object to the settlement agreement's corrupt gag order on City staff, requiring them to support the Terrace stoplight, regardless of their real opinions? Is staff still required to support the stoplight? Where is the Planning Commission in all of this? Why haven't they ever addressed any of these issues? Why is the Council fear mongering about the dire consequences of simply turning down the stoplight application, on the basis of the developer's own EIR, and returning to the negotiating table and court if necessary? Isn't the developer's legal beef in fact with the Coastal Commission, who in 2001 placed conditions on the Pacific Ridge permits that the developer immediately sued over? Coastside politicos, not known for their reticence, have been strangely quiet on last week's decision. Is there an unspoken alliance between the Old Guard, who are accomplished giveaway artists, especially when dealing with developer friends, and the No Growth crowd, who admire the Council's decision because it would forever eliminate Foothill Boulevard, which they see as growth-inducing? And finally, is it too obvious for words, that the Council's plan is to allow 63 oversized houses, without any mitigation or public benefit? Is it any wonder that Half Moon Bay is filled with tract housing, overcrowded thoroughfares, and a hodgepodge of infrastructure and amenities? Comments (5)

Terrace

Once upon a time there was a poor but handsome and charming prince who was drinking a few beers and kicking the empty cans while wondering through a field of lush, wetland flora along Pacific Ridge when he came across an ugly (red legged) frog. The frog entreated the prince to kiss it, claiming it would turn into a rich, beautiful princess who would shower all manner of favors upon him. Being a sucker for any kind of con game, and having had a few beers, the prince warmly embraced and kissed the frog which forthwith, lo & behold, turned into a San Francisco garter snake.

The moral of this story is: You don’t always get what you expect, no matter how much you want it to be so; and extreme choices invariably lead to extreme consequences. Let’s all hope the City Council can be convinced to reconsider kissing the Ailanto frog before we are forced to look upon the consequential face of Medusa.

Dale Dunham, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on April 14, 2007 at 9:18 pm

The City Council approval of the Paragraph 7d backdoor approach is akin to your doctor saying your PSA score is high or you got a lump in your breast.

The approval /disapproval of the stoplight should focus on ACCESS to a landlocked piece of property. Instead it has spread to include: discussion of development in the foothills, relationships, an unrealistic traffic mitigation lot retirement program, possible modifications to LCP definitions and an undefined “big picture”.

This cancer may not be curable but is treatable. A good dose of common sense could radiate this problem. This can be accomplished by the completion of the EIR combined with a realistic look at permanent access alternatives. In addition, the future commitment of a portion of the “traffic mitigation monies” from the developer to a comprehensive traffic study and plan is essential. An INDEPENDENT expert traffic firm should be hired. Their work should include updating the Half Moon Bay traffic/roadways City wide circulation plan and its interaction with other communities on the coast.

This “treatment” would yield longer lasting remission than a legal shell game and garner trust of the citizens of Half Moon Bay for the elected City council.

Reconsideration of this item should be placed on the agenda by the HMB City council.

Jerry Steinberg

Half Moon Bay

Jerry Steinberg, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on April 15, 2007 at 1:31 am

Just heard of an idea to soften the “polarization” in the community and give meaning to the Coastal Commission “traffic mitigation – Lot Retirement Program”.

That is, the $2, 850,000 from Ailanto should be used NOW to purchase the 5 to 6 lots ( at $450,000 per lot) in the Ailanto proposed subdivision that are sitting on the land that sometime in the future may or may not be used for Foothill Blvd extension.

This does mitigate traffic in two ways. It reduces the number of houses to 57 or 58 and buys time for a planning effort to determine if Foothill is the right thing to do.

Jerry Steinberg

Terrace Avenue

Half Moon Bay

Jerry Steinberg, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on April 22, 2007 at 11:14 pm

Sixty three lots worth $450,000 each or more each. So Ailanto properties can gross $28,350,000 by just selling the lots once they put in the streets.

The benefit the City gets for approving this development is a note for $2,800,000. We can use these funds to buy the lots required to preserve Foothill Blvd.

The deal that the former City Council turned down donated the land for Foothill Blvd and even helped to pay for it.

The Wavecrest developers where willing to pay for $12,000,000 worth of community improvements: free land for the Boys and Girls Club, Smith Fields, etc. They were also willing to donate over 100 acres of ocean front property for a community park and open space. The former City Council killed this deal too.

Silence Dogood, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on April 24, 2007 at 10:33 pm

Mr.(or Ms.) Dogood, I saw your comments when posted. I find your perspective fascinating, and accurate. I was, and still am, hoping you may share more on this topic, in this forum, to help us (the public) learn as much as we can regarding this issue and the history. Would you be interested in offering more to this forum? I hope so.

George, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on April 28, 2007 at 11:45 am